December 27, 2011

In 1960 Hayek wrote an essay titled “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” In it, Hayek pondered the conundrum that many Americans like me have struggled with since: What should we call ourselves? This is not a problem in Europe: I would be a liberal. Adam Smith is the quintessential liberal, in the European sense. But as Schumpeter noted, in the US, those who supported big government and wanted to limit and control the free market started calling themselves liberal: “[a]s a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.” So unhyphenated liberal means “progressive” or the like in the US, and that is definitely not an accurate label for a believer in a minimal state. Say “classical liberal” in the US and people just hear “liberal” and think “progressive”: confusion still reigns. “Conservatives” in the European sense, as Hayek argued, are primarily traditionalists, and hostile to many economic, personal, and civil liberties.

So what is the alternative? By default, “libertarian”–a word that Hayek said “[f]or my taste . . . carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute”–is pretty much all that is left. Again quoting Hayek: “But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.” So libertarian has pretty much become the default term to describe someone in the US who is not a liberal/progressive, traditional conservative, socialist, communist, or what have you.

But the “libertarian” label has been claimed by myriad people whom Hayek, and Friedman, and Richard Epstein–and Adam Smith–would find repulsive and decidedly unliberal, in the classical sense. The most prominent of these today is presidential candidate Ron Paul. Another is Paul’s former chief of staff Lew Rockwell. Yet another is radio ranter Alex Jones. (Sort of working my way down the food chain here.)

As Paul has made a serious challenge in Iowa, he and these others, and his supporters, have attracted much more scrutiny. And what is revealed is not pretty. Actually, ugly would be the proper word.

Many have documented the ugliness–most notably the racism that pervades Ron Paul’s newsletters from the 90s. A good compendium can be found at Ace of Spades. Given all that’s out there, I’ll let you find it for yourself. Just be prepared for what you find. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

I just want to make a few points.

First, much of the most trenchant criticism of Paul and his cultish followers (more on them later) comes from people who are sympathetic with many of the position he takes. These critics think that government is far too large, and that our liberties have been progressively (pun intended) eroded. And I agree.

But the dislike of Paul and the Paulians for the government has curdled into a hatred of America. There is no ugly anti-American conspiracy theory that they do not embrace. 9-11 Trutherism, for instance. They routinely recycle theories first floated by the KGB. No wonder RT loves Paul and gives Rockwell plenty of air time. And it is this profound anti-Americanism that repels people like me, and other Paul critics–people who believe that America is flawed but the last, best hope of mankind that has on balance been a profound force for good at home and in the world at large.

Second, Paul and the Paulians are utterly unrealistic in their prescriptions. Politics is the art of the possible, but Paul advances impossible plans built on fantastical foundations. Maybe a dictator could implement them. Maybe. But even ignoring the irony of dictatorial libertarianism, these grandiose plans are fundamentally at odds with Hayek’s warnings about the pretense of knowledge: the unintended consequences of libertarian social engineering would likely be as traumatic, at least in the short run, as socialist social engineering. The world is not an Etch-a-Sketch that you can shake clear and start all over again. But Paul evidently thinks so and prescribes root-and-branch transformations of every aspect of government policy from money to the military.

And the shrieking vituperation that Paulians direct at those who point out these realities makes plain that if, heaven forfend, they did take power they would be as extreme and uncompromising as any True Believing Bolshevik or Khmer Rouge. Disagree with any of their extremely unrealistic prescriptions–abolish the Fed, adopt the gold standard, eliminate every American overseas military facility–and you will be immediately bombarded with the Paulian insult trilogy: “neocon, statist, warmonger.” Yeah, that’s the way to win friends and influence people.

Paul’s historical disquisitions present a revealing perspective on his belief in his unique ability to find magical solutions to immense problems in the face of political obstacles that stymied generations of able statesmen in the past. The Civil War is an excellent example. He has called Lincoln a warmonger, and claims that the Civil War could have been avoided at lower cost by buying slaves.

Yeah. Nobody thought of that. Gee, I wonder what the problems would have been? Like: who would pay? Would the South have agreed to a paid emancipation plan given that the primary source of government revenue was tariffs that were paid largely out of Southern agricultural exports, notably cotton (an import tax is equivalent to an export tax)? Would Northerners, who were not, truth be told, abolitionists, been willing to pay taxes to compensate rich Southerners to free blacks whom most Northerners didn’t care a whit about? And another issue: as Reconstruction demonstrated, the issue of slavery was more complicated than dollars and cents. It involved the entire social structure of the South. One could go on.

Lincoln was in fact sympathetic to the idea of paid emancipation: he advanced the futile plan of buying slaves and relocating them to Africa. It was a political and practical folly.

But pay no mind to these practical realities. Ron Paul would have solved the political problem that bedeviled America from its founding. It is an American tragedy that Ron Paul was not around at the beginning of the 19th century. (Well, maybe he was. He is pretty old.)

Paul’s and the Paulian’s treatment of political issues past and present reveals them to be political gnostics of the radical dualist stripe. They believe they have special esoteric knowledge that gives them the ability to devise schemes of social salvation. They believe that the political world is divided between powers of darkness and powers of light.

These positions are utterly fantastical and have no hope of prevailing. Moreover, the stridency, weirdness and frequent ugliness of the advocates of these positions actually undermine the prospects for progress towards a smaller, Smithian state that focuses on protecting people against force and fraud. In 2012, Paul empowers Obama. Paul has no chance of winning, but he can so damage the already tenuous Republican presidential prospects that Obama could coast to victory despite fundamentals that would doom him to a landslide loss in most years.

But even beyond 2012, Paul and Paulians have so tarnished the libertarian label, that many like me are revisiting Hayek’s question: what’s my name again? And further: what is the practical political program that will lead to a smaller, less intrusive, less controlling, less destructive state? That is what Hayek pondered. That is what Friedman wrote about. That is what serious Smithian liberals think about today. That is not what Ron Paul and the Paulians do. And what they do gives libertarianism a bad name.

There isn’t much honor in the whole of the political class at this time and so the prospect of reducing the size of this class does hold attraction. Your point about easy solutions applies to the whole of election politics. Complete misrepresentation of reality has become the abominable norm.

I can’t imagine the common theme of the left and Paul to abandon Israel would lead to anything but global disaster.

@Howard–no wannabe me: just bought DKM tickets for 28 February. Yeah. The other stuff is complicated. Sometimes I just think I should chuck this professor stuff, stop thinking about economics and politics, get a mohawk, form a band, and just hit the road. LOL.

@Pahoben–re Mr. X–don’t I know it. I’ve started the countdown. Re the strange convergence of Paulian libertarians and extreme leftists: exactly true. And the real weird thing is that the main point of physical convergence is Austin, TX. You think of Austin weird=6th Street, hippy-dippy stuff. And that’s true. But Austin weird also=tinfoil hat libertarians (e.g., Alex Jones).

Because libertarianism is all about invading random foreign countries, giving aid to impoverished Israel, bailing out banks at taxpayer expense, subsidizing ethanol and the military industrial complex, granting indefinite detention powers to the the military, arresting judges who make rulings the President dislikes, restricting abortion and women’s rights, running sky-high budget deficits, returning to glorious 19th century traditions of child labor, waging a war on drugs that result in the imprisonment of every fourth black dude under thirty, and initiating a new cold war against Russia and China.

What great ideas the other Republicans have! They all just sound so awesome and… well, actually that describes an oligarchic dystopia. But maybe that’s just my extreme leftism showing.

You will have to read both images to see the seed that grew into the Ron Paul/Alex Jones/Webster Tarpley/Russia Today phenomenon. It goes back somewhat to George Wallace using Carto mailing lists, which proved lucrative. What Paul did was a carry over. In short, the neo-confederates want Russia to take out Washington so they can have a fascist Southern republic. They already have their own constitution as well: google Tom Moore or Thomas Moore, constitution and Southern National Congress (all together). It’s frightening.

I guess the general left and others would feel tingly better about Israel if they instituted public stonings of women for adultery and a minimum 100 lashes for sorcery. Also all this business about putting former presidents in prison for sexual harassment charges absolutely must stop.

S/O-you completely missed the point of this post whether by choice or other (I will not further describe other).

Ron Paul is the only major US politician who still respects the Constitution.

Obama orders assassinations of his own people. New Gingrich wants to arrest dissenting judges. They all want the military to have powers of indefinite detention not subject to judicial review.

What is Ron Paul’s problem? He (allegedly) authored some racist texts back in the 1980’s. Even if true, I prefer to look at policy, and Ron Paul promises to end the war on drugs. 25% of black men under the age of thirty are imprisoned, have been in prison, or are on probation; the vast bulk of these cases are drugs-related. In practical terms, Ron Paul heralds a new emancipation. He is also at fault for getting interview by those dastardly propagandists at RT. Perhaps that is because no corporate-controlled US channel wants to give him coverage?

You say that Obama would have more chances against Ron Paul than against a “mainstream” Republican candidate? I agree! I also happen to think that whatever his faults, Obama is still a far better bet than a grey apparatchik like Romney or insidious, ignorant demagogues Gingrich or Perry who are worshiped around these parts of cyberspace.

Ah Professor, I await your strongly worded criticism of the CME and Wall Street’s dear Fed for these endless ‘currency swaps’ with those bankrupt, decadent, Russia-appeasing EUrosocialists. Nary a peep of audit or even abolishing the institution that the U.S. functioned with successfully without until 1913 and that has created a 95% decline in the dollar’s value since then. Just a strongly worded ‘critique’ from an ornery cuss who knows the Establishment will turn on him in a second if he joins those hated ‘Paulians’ at the barricades.

And I await the heads exploding one week from today with great anticipation after Paul wins Iowa. And yes, more CME lawsuit subpeonas, piles of em’.

Ignorant demagogues like Putin or Zyuganov who are worshiped around these Sublime – Neo-Stalinist parts of cyberspace.

Putin and his inner circle need to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the West. Putin also needs to win the presidential election in March during the first round of voting. If the vote goes to a second round, it is entirely possible that Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov could become the next president. It will be difficult to repeat the same trick of 1996, in which the West clearly supported the better of two evils — Boris Yeltsin over Zyuganov. In a Putin-Zyuganov showdown, both are worse – http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/kremlin-not-protesters-takes-cues-from-hillary/450571.html

I get your drift. You are advocating sticking with the current crop of fraudsters that you know and can do business with. All that talk about freedom. liberty and prosperity from Dr. Paul is to be ignored because someone he has associated with made a few off color remarks. You so often rail against the type of plutocracy of Putin’s Russia but have no problem with the crony capitalism that we are presently experiencing and will continue to under any republican candidate other than Dr. Paul. You are too intelligent to try to convince us that the Fed is operating in our best interests than that of the chosen few. All republican candidates talk about low taxes and small government. The only problem is when they have the chance to do as they say they punt and make government bigger. Romney is a wishy washy tool of wall street and the Bush wing of the gop, Gingrich is an egomaniac gadfly who you never know where he stands he’s taken so many positions, Perry is a deer in the headlights Al Gore supporting idiot, Bachmann is a fact challenged dullard, and Santorum is a one trick pony who couldn’t win his home state! Dr. Paul “is the best candidate that money can’t buy.”

Yes I agree. Paul is completely out of touch with reality based solutions to todays problems. He has about as much chance of implementing them as he does of getting elected. Just ignore those folks in Iowa, everyone knows how loony those midwesterners are.

The whole Ace of Spades thingee is based on the testimony of one witness, who unlike The New Republic’s Kirchuk, couldn’t be bothered to present this four years ago the last time Paul ran for President. That makes it suspect, in my view. But believe what you want to.

Got anything else Andy? Why does a Kiwi give a hoot about Ron Paul anyway? Oh I forgot, you’re in Tblisi and the local economy might take a hit if the Demintern goes away and with it a bunch of Soros NGOs in downtown.

I just saw that idiot Dick Morris making a case that Ron Paul was an ultra left wing radical and one of his supporting facts was Paul’s opposition to the Patriot Act. The Professor’s observation is timely in that these simple labels are becoming less objectively applicable and without commonly understood meaning particularly with respect to current American conservatism and libertarianism.

My guess is you would be in British terms a classical liberal. Unfortunately, the word liberal has been mangled beyond all recognition in the US in the same way libertarian has, both having been turned into insults.

[…] Worldwide though we are seeing people rise up against central planning. It’s the millions versus the monolith. The Arab spring was something that could not have been fathomed 10 years ago. Some say its the result of social media, others the Iraq War, and some say a little of both. In China, people are becoming discontented with their government. In Russia, Putin looks to be in trouble. Closer to home we have seen a secondary movement in Occupy Wall Street that might have started with good intentions, but was co-opted by the hard left. Republican voters have tried almost every declared candidate on for size. In Iowa, we now see the rise of Ron Paul. […]

s/o Stalinism is the natural follower of Leninism, which is the natural result of social democracy when anyone’s freedom is curtailed: If Rosa Luxemberg could see this in 1906,admittedly in the context of the SD inter-party fights, I do not see why you cannot now. The drive for equality is the enemy of liberty: read de Bastiat’s The Law. It is about 160 years old but does a good job of demolishing the Proudhonists, Blancians, etc. – of which you are one. For critiques of direct democracy, see Aristotle.

Re our name: Bastiatians?, Hayekians? Or how about the sons or children or lovers of liberty?

Re reading and writing posts – a new motto: Absinth makes the heart grow fonder. or at least more tolerant!

I definitely disagree with the article. First of all, the newsletters were not written by Paul and he did not have knowledge of them until after the fact. He’s repeatedly said this; however, those who do not like his views, like to bring this up often, ignoring the part where we all learned he didn’t write them. Even the writing style and the kind of language used is very different from his writings.

Secondly, 9/11 Truthers are upset with Paul because he “threw them under the bus,” as one 9/11 Truther site claims. By “threw them under the bus,” the writer refers to the fact that Paul said in his 2008 campaign that he does not endorse anything 9/11 Truthers say. The writer – and evidently other Truthers – for some reason expect Paul to support their views, but he has never done so.

“But the dislike of Paul and Paulians has curdled into hatred for America.” Paul hates America? Paulians hate America? I wouldn’t be surprised if some Paulians hate America, especially since many of his supporters are youth, and youth are a little more prone to passionate views, but I seriously doubt even a significant minority of them do. In fact, if they hated America, I would think they would care nothing at all for its politics, would not wish to participate in them in any way, and would hate Paul too, because he’s running as a Republican, playing into the two-party system they hate. The charge that Paul “hates America” is so stupid I don’t even think a response has to be made.

The writer says: “And the shrieking vituperation that Paulians direct at those who point out these realities makes plain that if, heaven forfend, they did take power they would be as extreme and uncompromising as any True Believing Bolshevik or Khmer Rouge. Disagree with any of their extremely unrealistic prescriptions–abolish the Fed, adopt the gold standard, eliminate every American overseas military facility–and you will be immediately bombarded with the Paulian insult trilogy: ‘neocon, statist, warmonger.’ ” The latter statement, for some Paulians, is probably true – as true for them as it is for supporters of any other candidate, in the sense that critics of their views will be called untrue and stupid names for criticizing their views. But this is certainly not unique to Paulians. I know I have never called anyone those names, and I’ve never met anyone who supported Paul who did, though I’ve seen internet commenters who are guilty of doing so. As for the fact that they would be as “extreme and uncompromising as any True Believing Bolshevik or Khmer Rouge,” the writer has evidently forgotten that Paul supports democracy, as do his supporters; though again, I’m sure, there are those who are extremists (always the most vocal and visible) who would prefer to impose their views on the country. But again, this is the case of every political orientation and is not special to those who support Paul.

As for the Civil War bit, I agree with the writer. Paul based his idea on what the British did. Why should we pay slave owners to do the right thing, even if they did agree to it? I also disagree with Paul’s libertarian stance on civil rights laws that were passed during the civil rights movement.

Overall, the article is largely innaccurate. It picks out the most extreme of Paulians as if they constituted the majority of Paulians. I think you would find that the majority of “Paulians” would not call themselves Paulians, unless they just wanted to save themselves the time of saying “supporter of Ron Paul,” would disagree with certain views of his, do not wish to impose their views on all Americans through totalitarian control, do not believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories, most definitely do not hate America, but support Paul because he is, in their eyes, the most reasonable, logical, and honest candidate running, has the best ideas, and seems to be what our country needs right now.

On a side note, I’m absolutely fine with people disagreeing with Paul’s views. Returning to the “Gold Standard” sounds a bit far fetched to me. I don’t know enough about the Fed to wish to end it, but I certainly would love to see it audited, an effort both Paul and Nader have made. There are several other issues I disagree with him on. But I believe he’s our best choice this election, and for that matter, is one of the best choices we’ve had in a long time. I disagree with those who believe we should be in other countries with military bases, or at war, or meddling with Iran, or interfering with Israel and Palestine, etc., but I understand their thinking and also what they base that thinking off of. I would only ask that people who disagree with Paul support their views with reason and logic supported by fact, rather than making emotional and broad statements about Paul and his supporters as their defense, and rather than using bad information and having done little research. I would ask the same of Republicans who attack Democrats, and Democrats who attack Republicans, and independents who attack them both.

“And it is this profound anti-Americanism that repels people like me, and other Paul critics–people who believe that America is flawed but the last, best hope of mankind that has on balance been a profound force for good at home and in the world at large.”

This is just nationalistic self glorification. The usa do what other countries, given the size, would have done if it could: trying to increase its control and influence around the world. And what “hope” are you talking about? If we were talking about usa anno 1776 or so, I would agree, but we don`t. Have you forgotten that the american people ca four years ago, elected Obama, a closet soscialist and economic ignoramus ? What hope is that ?

And I don`t understand your identity confusion. Considering that you believe country=government and prefer political power and moderation (didn`t Goldwater say something about this) before principle and honesty, why don`t you call yourself a republican ?

S/O-in regards to your statement about a particular group having 25% of males in prison do to drug laws-does this imply you believe this group would be better off with free and unfettered acces to crack, meth, heroin, prescription depressants, etc

[…] would start looking for scapegoats rather than looking in the mirror. Those who once followed Streetwise Professor Craig ‘Ron Paul supporters are like the Khmer Rouge’ Pirrong as fanatically loyal tweeps and @ReginaldQuill are no exceptions to this rule. Certainly they must […]

[…] Libertarian stridency on this issue also brings to mind my post from a couple years ago: “What’s My Name Again?” (Warning! Hyperbolic comparisons of Ron Paul-esque libertarians to the Khmer Rouge! Make […]